¤Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000
Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium
Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures
Order of 8 December 2000

[p. ] 65. Whereas, however, in the final version of its argument in
the present proceedings, Belgium further observed that by the terms of its
declaration it had excluded the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court concerning
situations or facts "in regard to which the parties have agreed or may
agree to have recourse to another method of pacific settlement"; and
whereas it stated that negotiations at the highest level regarding the arrest
warrant issued on 11 April 2000 were in fact in progress when the Congo seised
the Court (see paragraph 46 above);

66. Whereas Belgium has not, however, provided the Court with any further
details of those negotiations, in particular with regard to the way in which
they have been carried out, or to their duration, scope or state of progress at
the time of filing of the Congo's Application; whereas the Court is not in a
position to determine whether, in the present case, the Parties had agreed
temporarily to exclude any recourse to the Court on account of, and for the
duration of, the ongoing negotiations; whereas Belgium, moreover, has not
explained to the Court the precise consequences which it considered the holding
of those negotiations, or the holding of negotiations generally, would have in
regard to the Courts jurisdiction, and in particular its jurisdiction to
indicate provisional measures;

67. Whereas, when the Court has before it a request for the indication of
provisional measures, it has no need, before deciding whether or not to indicate
such measures, to satisfy itself beyond doubt that it has jurisdiction on the
merits of the case, but whereas it cannot nevertheless indicate those measures
unless the provisions invoked appear prima facie to constitute a basis on which
its jurisdiction could be founded;

68. Whereas the Court concludes that the declarations made by the Parties
pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 2, of its Statute constitute prima facie a
basis on which its jurisdiction could be founded in the present case; and
whereas such jurisdiction cannot be excluded, at the present stage of the
proceedings, solely by reason of the negotiations referred to by Belgium;